Skip to main content

Analog Summing Boxes ?

There's obviously a lot to talk about I don't have one currently I've used the inward connections and what I found was the same mix had more dimension and what seemed to be fatter tracks

Is it the box itself ?

Is it the fact that there all summed together ?

What I heard and I'm not sure if someone can shed some light on this that a computer can't decide what to mix first second etc so by summing your controlling the flow of how it's mixed

Also because of the electronics in the box you get a wider frequency range added to your tracks better punchy low end clearer mids and better highs

Now I realize these are all opinions but please pcrecord
or anyone that's had specific experience with summing boxes,while mixing please chime in.

Comments

audiokid Sat, 11/29/2014 - 10:24

So how are you coming out of your daw and back, DAAD?
And is this individual tracks or the Mix summed where you hear the greatest change?

I'd love to here a comparison between this?

Through my hybrid tests, (no hardware added) I do not hear any increase in size or change via a direct in and out between the daw and the box ( at least until another step). IMHO, the best analog summing boxes should be transparent as the daw until hardware is added. It is my opinion that the daw has the superior size and if this isn't the case to your ears, you have a variety of problems or issues that you aren't aware of which I'd be more than thrilled to discuss this in detail throughout this thread.

I do not believe analog processing increases size but I do believe it changes it. Which is a good thing if it isn't fooling you with transient smear like bit shifting.

I would be interested in hearing a mono comparison between the exact two mixes. This will reveal whether you are hearing a shift in the stereo field or not.

If you are hearing a smear after the AD returns, then your summing box is not improving your mix, it is fooling you by ways of shifting.

Tommy osuna Sat, 11/29/2014 - 10:50

Ok that makes sense I just moved to hawaii this week I don't have my gear hooked up

A sales person at vintage king mentioned the part about the computer not being able to decide what to mix first

Does that make a difference in quality ? He said it did

I did notice again more 3d type dimension is that an illusion ? If it was it was a beutifull illusion

I do more if my tracking and mixing by feel I'm not the most technical when it comes to understanding the units but my ear is what tells me what I need and desire this must be obvious by my question

audiokid Sat, 11/29/2014 - 11:28

You lucky guy, I would love the live there. A favorite place on the planet.

Welcome to what we all hear at first.
Until you do the mono comparisons,
, even better, uploaded for us to hear outside your monitoring process, your quest to demystify whether this box is worth the investment or a gimmick. What I mean there, my guess is you could actually do what the summing box is doing ITB better. The key is learning what its doing ;)

After you do mono comparisons we will learn more.

Tommy osuna Sat, 11/29/2014 - 12:52

Cool well the other thing I did was interesting also I decided to take all the audio one by one on another song just to experiment for another reason

I put the audio through the nail by a designs as I just got it a couple months ago and this is what happened

The tracks got better fatter and more focused and had more dimension for sure so much easier to mix

I put totally different compression levels on rack track some 3 db or less and I got such a big difference in the over all quality now I know I track well and I also know that different electronics do effect the sound for the positive and negative

In this case from my ear it was incredibly for the positive the separation was outstanding

I also did not sum these through the inward connections box

Reverend Lucas Sat, 11/29/2014 - 16:24

Tommy,

Summing in the digital domain is just a matter of adding bits. It's not a question of the computer not knowing which to add first, because it doesn't matter. For example, any way you add the numbers 2, 3, and 5 together you get 10. It's called the associative property to get nerdy about it.

Anyway, I don't mean to discount analog summers, only the idea that there's something 'wrong' with digital summation. There may be something added via analog summing, but it's distortion caused by going through additional conversion processes, and circuitry of the summer. This may or may not be perceived as good. Most salespeople won't tell you that.

I hope this helps.

Tommy osuna Sat, 11/29/2014 - 17:22

"Summing Box" is a little vague... ;)

Can you be more specific about which summing gear you are using, and what your workflow is?
From Donnie

The inwards connections

Built using the same proprietary op-amps as the DEQ-1, the Mix 690 Summing Mixer sounds very large and fat while still retaining clarity and detail in the high end. The mid range comes across as punchy and perceptually loud, which adds excitement to any mix. The perfect way to relieve your overworked digital mix bus and restore resolution and depth to your mixes.

And a designs nail which I think your familiar with already

Sometimes using outboard gear and with the a designs no out board gear used in the experiment of just running the tracks thru individually

I just feel now the a designs nail is a multi dimensional tool for me now

audiokid Sat, 11/29/2014 - 17:35

Tommy osuna, post: 421603, member: 48582 wrote: Hmmm ok well the tracks sounded better to me maybe it's the harmonic distortion the a designs and inwards connections but now that I have the nail by a designs I will keep using this method

I've been where you are. This is parts of my summing system, now selling it as I "yet once again" learn a different way:

I have done extensive testing. My studies have proven OTB hardware does little if any you can't do better, ITB.
I've owned the Nail, Hammer, API 2500, SSL G, Crane Song, UA and a few different summing boxes including a few Bricasti's, EQ, tube and SS, BAX, Pultec etc.. and although outboards processing does change the sound and make a damn FUN TIME of mixng and summing, hardware does little to improve the sonics in comparison to an informed ITB engineer. What it does do is give us a different perspective and this may be the biggest reason to go for it. I know I would never know what I know now without this experience.
When you are ready to listen deeper into your process, we'll be having this chat with some other guy making the same expensive dance.

I bet once you actually mono the sum and compare both, the OTB will sound duller, flabbier and smear(ier).
If you don't have stellar ADDA as well, you are degrading your path even more. You interface is also paramount!

Now, all this being said! This doesn't mean your OTB experience isn't beneficial or improving your mixing skills!!
After a few years of constant comparing and improving my monitoring process, I found I was actually adding too much EQ ITB . OTB helped tame my mistakes and open my ears . Now that I "hear" better, I also have learned I can emulate almost everything better ITB when I mix into a master via a capture system.

Without going on, there are key steps and a few products that I feel are essential to allow me to hear my DAW better which is where hybrid gets very interesting and a lot more affordable. But it doesn't include a transformer based summing box or console!
Q: Is it the summing box, a console or simply hearing a mix OTB that gives us the edge to "mix, sum or master" better?

pcrecord Sat, 11/29/2014 - 18:11

Tommy osuna, post: 421589, member: 48582 wrote: please pcrecord or anyone that's had specific experience with summing boxes ,while mixing please chime in.

I haven't use any summing box, but I'm very intrigue by them.
What Chris has experience makes a lot of sense.

But Tommy, I'd like to hear the difference between your same mix mixdown by the DAW and through the summing box.
You could do a demonstration for us, showing differences on spectrum analyser and how the mixes can cancel themself once the polarity on one is inverted. Just a thought ;)

Tommy osuna Sat, 11/29/2014 - 20:48

Cool again I just moved and when I get all my stuff here in hawaii I'll try and do that time permitting but I know my ears did not fail me in the test I did

But probably to many things changed in the process as I was doing this process so to give an exact true demonstration may not be possible sorry

Now I'm tracking successfully through the nail so I don't go through the process of having to re run everything thru it

Also the tracks sounded better to me when I re ran them thru the nail with the same monitoring system so it couldn't be my mixing skills getting better as I did not even start the mixing yet I was preparing them to be mixed so that's a mystery ??

That's what's cool about audio there are so many different possibilities that getting where you want is a great journey

Love talking about gear :)

Tommy osuna Sun, 11/30/2014 - 04:59

I'm also adding sorry again as I don't write as well as I speak (: i don't own the inwards connections box. I mix with tom weir at studio city sound in the la area ,he's done countless records from Grammys to the regular guy (: and his statement to me was when he got his summing box he's already been mixing in la for 30 some years and when he went digital he preferred the summing box for the reasons I mentioned . Also, when I brought in the music and showed him my mix that I did with the a designs nail he was blown away by the separation and just overall great quality

Sorry I did not post this before

pcrecord Sun, 11/30/2014 - 05:57

Tommy osuna, post: 421617, member: 48582 wrote: but I know my ears did not fail me in the test I did

I'm not at all doubting you or your ears, Tommy. I'm not trying to get a proof of what you are saying either.
My interest in asking comparaisons is to try to figure out how different the files are and what are the differences.

Hawai.. mmm.. What brought you there Tommy ? Work, Love.. ? ;)

Tommy osuna Sun, 11/30/2014 - 08:36

audiokid, post: 421605, member: 1 wrote: I've been where you are. This is parts of my summing system, now selling it as I "yet once again" learn a different way:

I have done extensive testing. My studies have proven OTB hardware does little if any you can't do better, ITB.
I've owned the Nail, Hammer, API 2500, SSL G, Crane Song, UA and a few different summing boxes including a few Bricasti's, EQ, tube and SS, BAX, Pultec etc.. and although outboards processing does change the sound and make a damn FUN TIME of mixng and summing, hardware does little to improve the sonics in comparison to an informed ITB engineer. What it does do is give us a different perspective and this may be the biggest reason to go for it. I know I would never know what I know now without this experience.
When you are ready to listen deeper into your process, we'll be having this chat with some other guy making the same expensive dance.

I bet once you actually mono the sum and compare both, the OTB will sound duller, flabbier and smear(ier).
If you don't have stellar ADDA as well, you are degrading your path even more. You interface is also paramount!

Now, all this being said! This doesn't mean your OTB experience isn't beneficial or improving your mixing skills!!
After a few years of constant comparing and improving my monitoring process, I found I was actually adding too much EQ ITB . OTB helped tame my mistakes and open my ears . Now that I "hear" better, I also have learned I can emulate almost everything better ITB when I mix into a master via a capture system.

Without going on, there are key steps and a few products that I feel are essential to allow me to hear my DAW better which is where hybrid gets very interesting and a lot more affordable. But it doesn't include a transformer based summing box or console!
Q: Is it the summing box, a console or simply hearing a mix OTB that gives us the edge to "mix, sum or master" better?

Go look at studio city sounds list and tell me if he has all the right gear so in your opinion you can see if the studio equipment is making the mixes smeaier as you put it from my knowledge scs studios has the highest quality adda conversation that would match up to the worlds finest engineers opinion then tell me if that equipment or his capabilities are inferior or that he would would need work on his mixing after listening to his work

I say this because your referring to my opinion that I like the approach and that from your studies of engineering that I would have have the issue either equipment or lack of experience neither apply here

After you look and hear what he's done tom weir I'll post what I've done in the last couple years And I don't think you would make those particular statements

Cool again it's nice to converse about audio

audiokid Sun, 11/30/2014 - 09:49

Again, my comments are directed only towards hybrid mixing or mastering, not tracking. Which is addressing the claims outboard compressors, EQ's, including consoles and summing boxes sonically improves the overall sonics in a hybrid mix or mastering process. I say its naive, G.A.S. marketing hype and could prove it under a favorable challenge.

When you say your buddy has the best gear and Grammy credits! I don't doubt it. (y) . Now lets get this out of the way. No one has used better gear to prove this than I for these particular studies. We all use different gear here or there but nothing that will be substantially different in gear level quality for big boys to rethink their future on this one.
The gear card is simply showing us we understand we're not mixing with toys and loops.

The Hybrid benefits I hear come from a process which has very little to do about gear today and it most certainly is about knowing. No disrespect to you, your friend or the wonderful manufacturers making all this pristine gear, but the Nail is a noisy smeary compressor that is only good for tracking or round trip insertion via mono sends when hybrid mixing or mastering. It smears a 2-bus.
I did those tests like you, here two years ago and we liked the sound, but better without once I realized why people are believing round trip is an inprovment.

If there was any money left in the business for me, something to gain for my efforts in a public shoot out, the process I describe will rival the best studios on the planet. That's how sure I am about all this hybrid nonsense (G.A.S. hype) being feed to people on these forums.
To add, the theory any console in the mixing path improves hybrid mixing today is also total nonsense spread by people like me in the first place, followed by the blind leading the blind.

Like I say, do the mono null test. It will prove the best hardware, consoles, boxes etc etc etc... is not doing what they think its doing.

Tommy osuna, post: 421638, member: 48582 wrote: Cool again it's nice to converse about audio

(y)

Tommy osuna Sun, 11/30/2014 - 11:32

Well we mix there with all the out board gear that he has all at the same time on most mixes

Interesting this is I remember mixing with him before he got all the summing gear it sounded really good but different good

You seem to be more technically capable then me could you look at his set up is so we can talk about this without me trying to explain what he has

The smeaier sound from the nail I have not heard I have not got that impression in any of my listening from anything I've put audio thru there

Cool thanks for your input

Tommy osuna Sun, 11/30/2014 - 12:27

audiokid, post: 421640, member: 1 wrote: Again, my comments are directed only towards hybrid mixing or mastering, not tracking. Which is addressing the claims outboard compressors, EQ's, including consoles and summing boxes sonically improves the overall sonics in a hybrid mix or mastering process. I say its naive, G.A.S. marketing hype and could prove it under a favorable challenge.

When you say your buddy has the best gear and Grammy credits! I don't doubt it. (y) . Now lets get this out of the way. No one has used better gear to prove this than I for these particular studies. We all use different gear here or there but nothing that will be substantially different in gear level quality for big boys to rethink their future on this one.
The gear card is simply showing us we understand we're not mixing with toys and loops.

The Hybrid benefits I hear come from a process which has very little to do about gear today and it most certainly is about knowing. No disrespect to you, your friend or the wonderful manufacturers making all this pristine gear, but the Nail is a noisy smeary compressor that is only good for tracking or round trip insertion via mono sends when hybrid mixing or mastering. It smears a 2-bus.
I did those tests like you, here two years ago and we liked the sound, but better without once I realized why people are believing round trip is an inprovment.

If there was any money left in the business for me, something to gain for my efforts in a public shoot out, the process I describe will rival the best studios on the planet. That's how sure I am about all this hybrid nonsense (G.A.S. hype) being feed to people on these forums.
To add, the theory any console in the mixing path improves hybrid mixing today is also total nonsense spread by people like me in the first place, followed by the blind leading the blind.

Like I say, do the mono null test. It will prove the best hardware, consoles, boxes etc etc etc... is not doing what they think its doing.

(y)

Does this answer any of your questions on his equipment lists
DAW: 48 in 48 out
Apple Mac Pro 3.06GHz 12-core, 20gb Ram
ProTools HDX
Pro Tools HD 10 & 11
Logic Pro 9
Avid HD I/O 16×16 (x3) 48 in 48 out
Avid SYNC HD
Sync
eMagic Unitor 8
Avid MC Mix (8 Flying Faders)

Inward Connections Discrete Stereo Bus Mixer (x2)

Monitoring Systems:
Grace Design m906
Barefoot MicroMain27
Yamaha NS-10
Bryston 4B Power Amps
Hafler Transelnova P3000

Preamps & EQ’s:
BAE Neve 1073 (x2)
API 512C (x2)
API 550 EQ (x2)
Maag Audio EQ4 (x2)
dbx 905 Parametric EQs (x5)
Avalon 747sp Program Equalizer
Inward Connections The Brat EQ (x2)
Inward Connections Equalizer 820 (x2)
Inward Connections DEQ-4P Dual 4-Band Parametric
Summit Audio Dual Program Equalizer
Tree Audio The Branch (Channel Strip) *available upon request

Processing:
Drawmer MX-50 Dual De-Esser (x2)
Drawmer MX-40 Punch Gate
Drawmer D S 201 Dual Gate (x2)
Neve 33609 J/D Stereo Limiter/Compressor
Tube-Tech CL-1A
SPL Transient Designer
Inward Connections TSL-3 Tube Limiter
Inward Connections Modular Tube Limiter (x2)
UREI 1176n Peak Limiter (blackface)
UREI 1176ln Peak Limiter (silverface) (x2)
Retro 176 Limiting Amplifier
Smart Research C2 Stereo compressor/limiter

FX:
AMS RMX16
Lexicon PCM70
Lexicon PCM90
Eventide H3500 Ultra-Harmonizer
Yamaha REV-5
Yamaha SPX90
AccuVerb Spring Reverb (stereo)

ISDN:
Telos Zephyr Extreme
Source Connect Pro

audiokid Sun, 11/30/2014 - 13:54

The gear posted is average pro audio . Standard stuff.

Understandably, You and most pro studios using the round trip are caught in this process we all started back in the 90's. It was a cool idea but it's full of problems.

The round trip has been pushed by the dated and dying studios grabbing for that last leg to stand on.

Pro Audio is not an easy concept to grasp when you have reputable, yet very dated pro audio engineers sharing a work-flow on forums. No wonder these studios are doing the Round Trip and using a 10m to clock all this dated nonsense. And over on the side lines sits trusting newbies scratching their heads trying to read between the lines. Who do we trust? Its just easier to say, its all a preference so do what works for you. And so it continues.

We don't need to agree but its pretty clear who the dated is. No one wants to hear their gear is dated and those who have invested money aren't easily transformed. They drag along a lot of baggage!
Support of Purchase, Blind leading the Blind.
What if we proved right now, the gear and way that studio mixes can be done just as good, better ITB for $10,000.

Would anyone you know want to mix something in public (here) and take the chance to expose their reputation, to prove the mass of their analog gear means nothing in the big picture?
To take it even further, most studios are actually smearing and degrading clients music through their backwards round trip concept. Its so obvious. Its not fooling me which is why I took the time to find out for myself. Its not the gear, its the guy behind the wheel. Once ITB, stay ITB.

This topic is a highly subjective.
You asked about summing boxes because you are questioning what?

My guess is you heard something cool and are now excited to talk about it? You are interested in improving your music, you are excited to learn what others are doing. The question is, do you want to hear gear is the magic bullet or, the truth, that you need to forget all that and learn to mix ITB, better?

Most of us over process ITB. We don't realize how little we need. ITB is notorious for accumulative distortion. It ramps up to an out-of-control train wreck faster than analog, which is really why old school prefers it. You can twist digital freq so recklessly like analog. It will actually do something!
It's really easy to blame the daw, when it really is the user who is playing around with the mouse too much.

Maybe you are thinking you want to invest in this and want to know what else works better?i say, don't waste your money or time.

We don't have to agree. A great song is a great song.

I'm excited to hear some mono examples. Until then, my words here are meaning less.

Tommy osuna Sun, 11/30/2014 - 15:43

I hear ya on the dying studios what's cool about toms place is 3 rooms full almost all the tume reason , he delivers the goods so he prefers the analog and digital

Cool man thanks for all your insight I will stay in my path for now as I love the results maybe some day I can have you mix the same audio as I and see how that would turn out I'm sure both great just different (:

pcrecord Sun, 11/30/2014 - 15:51

I think that if I had all that OTB gear I'd be tempted to use it, but I don't
What I concentrated at was to have the best tracking gear my limited budget allowed.
Because for me, all the ITB or OTB gear won't fix a poorly recorded track nor create one. (vsti excluded of course)

If the performance and capture is right, you just need, not to screw it up at the mix time ;)

pcrecord Sun, 11/30/2014 - 16:01

Tommy osuna, post: 421653, member: 48582 wrote: maybe some day I can have you mix the same audio as I and see how that would turn out I'm sure both great just different :)

This wouldn't be a good A/B test since you both have your own way to mix. It will then become a mixing contest.

I guess that Chris is telling us that he's been on a gear journey and he now realises he could do nearly everything ITB and we need to think about that before spending 500k in gear...
We also have to consider that his years of experiences showed him what external gear can do and now he has a better understanding how to do it ITB.

I say, do what is pleasing you and what gives you the sound you like.
Keeping making music is all that counts !

audiokid Sun, 11/30/2014 - 16:40

Not exactly Marco. I could without doubt prove something significant. The ideal way is for the owner of the song to do his best, then send me what they did and I out do it or get it done close enough that no one in there right mind would logically spend money on racks of gear or a mixing console again. Its over.

It wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with personal levels, creative choices and such, it would be an obvious notice in "SPACE, CLARITY, and IMAGING if I did it". Being a better mixer or having racks of the best gear on the planet has nothing to gain which is my point here. I trust I understand why we are actually "wasting" our time hybrid mixing and feel we have finally reached the point of no return.
Note, I still do a hybrid DANCE, just not with all the gear and steps I used to do.

A very simple $10,000 hybrid system will rival a million dollar analog mixing or mastering system without doubt. In fact, the more gear you use in the hybrid lanes, and especially 2-bus stems, the less chance you have of taking it to the next level.

audiokid Sun, 11/30/2014 - 18:24

I don't think quite the same way, otherwise you would be saving your pennies with improved sound.
But, lets leave it at that. You asked and the manufacturers need to eat too.
I use a different DAW than most and a process that saves thousands of dollars and guessing.
You keep doing your thing, I'm sure your mixes sound fantastic! . Its all fun when you are having fun.

audiokid Sun, 11/30/2014 - 18:30

Thanks Marco, we're seeding for the harvest.
I'm waiting for the perfect opportunity to make the 57 years at this life worth the investment; which will most likely never happen. I mean, who is ever going to put their studio and reputation online for us to kill it all ITB.
To make it worth my time, it would have to be a crowd pleaser personality or a weeks wages. Which the way this industry is going, it will never happen . So, its just another day on the forums.

Tommy osuna Sun, 11/30/2014 - 19:05

I agree 10,000 with Hybrid now it's just what you want

Spending my money I know how I'm spending it and your opinion is valid but not the way the audio works starts and stops it's an opinion which is fine we all have them

Now let's go work on music out own way ! Were both seasoned enough to not worry about the small stuff

audiokid Sun, 11/30/2014 - 19:21

Tommy, this is what I'm getting at, but its not what I use, but still cool. You sum back to the same DAW, yes? I don't. ;)
This would be a good piece in your setup to check out too.

I'd love this but it lacks the AD for monitoring.

[[url=http://[/URL]="

"]View:

[/]="

"]View:

[/]

THE B2 BOMBER ANALOG / DIGITAL CONVERTERThe B2 Bomber ADC from BURL Audio is the most significant piece of audio gear in your studio, and you don’t even own it yet. You’ve spent a fortune on great mics, great mic pres, and a kick ass DAW, but unfortunately you are missing one key component; an ADC with an audio path worthy of your recordings.

Open up your best mic pre and look inside. You will see high quality components like tubes, large transformers and high quality capacitors. Open up your ADC and you will find cheap 10 cent capacitors and run-of-the-mill 25 cent op-amps, even when you’ve spent a lot of money on your interface. Most DAW hardware interfaces are designed for inter-connectivity with little attention to the analog audio path, or even the conversion, let alone the tone.

The B2 Bomber is designed for great specifications, but more importantly, it is designed to give you the ultimate in recording tone. For years now people have been trying to figure out why their digital recordings don’t have the warmth and feel of analog tape recordings. We try using tube mic pres and great compressors, but there is still something missing. There is still that blurriness, that graininess and lack of depth that comes with digital recordings.

BURL Audio has solved this problem by designing an analog audio path that is complimentary to your mic pre and to the analog to digital process. By using a revolutionary hybrid circuit with a proprietary transformer, the BURL AUDIO BX1, and a discrete class-A, zero feedback, zero capacitor signal path, we have achieved dynamic and tonal balance.

Using a B2 Bomber in the studio is like taking the governor off of your recordings. And, the B2 is not just for tracking. Mix down and mastering were the main focus of the B2′s layout and design. With 30 segment peak amplitude and RMS metering, the B2 lets you know exactly how hot you are running your signal which is critical for mastering.

The attenuator settings on the front easily allow you to change input headroom giving you the ability to hit the front end hotter or colder depending on what the material calls for. And don’t be afraid to run the B2 Bomber hot, it only sounds better. Couple that with an extremely low jitter clock source, and you have the B2 Bomber ADC, the most significant piece of gear in your studio.

Features:

• 44.1k Hz to 192k Hz, 24 bit, 2 channel ADC
• Proprietary, high definition, BURL Audio BX1 transformer input
• All class A, discrete transistors signal path with zero feedback, zero caps

audiokid Mon, 12/01/2014 - 09:28

pcrecord, post: 421654, member: 46460 wrote: I think that if I had all that OTB gear I'd be tempted to use it, but I don't

Exactly why the Round Trip got started. It keeps gear in the loop but not without compromise. Its obvious there is bias and support of purchase thinking with this too.

Here is something to think about. Its easy to twist analog pots further without obvious destruction. If you are coming from old school, where I came from, then moved to a DAW, you are going to trust old habits and emulate that ITB.

One of the greatest lessons I've learned with my mastering hardware, less is more. The lower end stuff is more forgiving, sloppy. Meaning, you can twist those knobs a lot further. (another topic)

What does this tell us about gear and the end user? What does this tell you about old school merging with modern methods?

Compare that to ITB now. When you move something ITB, it moves exactly where you put it. When you move something in analog, it moves but its still a lot more forgiving. Working with analog gear is a treat and more forgiving. Working with digital is deadly accurate and not forgiving. Hybrid has helped me compare ITB vs OTB processes. Through that, I discovered I've been twisting digital knobs way too much.

I'm assuming I'm not alone.

anonymous Tue, 12/02/2014 - 03:16

I don't understand why people are so hung up on mixing with the "round trip" workflow... it's not like adding another uncoupled DAW to mix down to is all that expensive... and if it keeps the integrity of the sonics, why wouldn't you drop another $500 or so into a separate computer/DAW? Guys who are into hybrid spend a lot more than that on one single channel "whatever"...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't using a decoupled DAW as your "mixdown deck" remove the expensive clocking from the chain? And why do guys insist on mixing back to the source DAW?

Why is this so crucial to them?

I'm not saying to not use hybrid as a mixing method... I'm saying I don't understand the obligation to mixing round trip, and why there is such a huge objection to mixing out to another separate DAW...

pcrecord Tue, 12/02/2014 - 05:18

DonnyThompson, post: 421712, member: 46114 wrote: why wouldn't you drop another $500 or so into a separate computer/DAW?

I think it's a bit more expensive than that Donny.
If I'd decide to do it, I'd buy a high end DA for my mixing DAW and a High end AD/interface for the uncoupled DAW. I would have to buy At least a good converter for the uncoupled DAW (assuming I already have one for the first DAW) then a computer, then the software and maybe a summing box.
I might be wrong but to me it doesn't make sense to send the stereo mix of a DAW to another DAW. I'd rather use the mixdown or export fonction of the software.
What may makes sense is to send seperate group/tracks to a summing box or a mixer, insert any outboard processing and then capture the stereo mix to a seperate DAW.
Here's my question, I can understand that when I push play on my DAW, with the reading of the files and processing effects, some bits may be dropped and the quality may be degraded. But what happen with mixdown/export fonctions. Would the computer just take the time to compile everything or is there some risk of degradation as well?

anonymous Tue, 12/02/2014 - 06:39

This is where Chris's experience comes into play. I haven't worked enough with hybrid to know, or to answer that question.

My biggest question at this point is why so many hybrid users seem to insist on doing the round trip method...?

The idea is to integrate analog with digital, right? I mean, that's the whole purpose... to do this method the right way is going to require a pretty serious budget; and if what Chris says is true, and that the round-trip method results in phasing/latency issues, aren't you kinda defeating the original purpose?

So, yeah, you're probably right that a separate, uncoupled computer and I/O is more than $500. But, it seems to me that even if it was 2 thousand dollars, this is still a fairly paltry sum for those who have already invested up to $25k to set up a nice hybrid workflow.

I would think that the added cost of a second DAW, with appropriate I/O and conversion, wouldn't be all that much in the grand scheme of things - considering that the round-trip users have already invested in hi-dollar clocking and conversion; all you really need to do is re-direct what they already have with those devices to a secondary computer, no?

What am I missing? (Seriously, I'm not being a smart ass with that question... )

audiokid Tue, 12/02/2014 - 07:38

You've got it exactly, Donny.

to add,
Few people even are aware of this. Its more a mastering step. So thats what we are really doing, mixing into the master. ;)
Round Trip costs more in every way (sonically, mentally, financially) yielding poorer results. You end up buying gear you don't even need. It ridiculous to me.

x

Register

Your recently read content